Shifting state prisoners to local jails doesn't save much money

Inmates down, costs up

"California has reached a milestone: The average daily number of inmates in the state's prisons and fire camps is projected to be less than 122,000 in 2013-14, roughly the same number as in 1994-95. At the same time, the state's cost per inmate is substantially higher than it was in the mid-1990s. California is expected to spend approximately $60,000 per inmate in 2013-14.This is 82.3 percent higher than in 1994-95, when the state spent slightly less than $33,000 for every inmate, and 15.1 percent higher than in 2010-11, when the state spent roughly $52,000 per inmate, after adjusting for inflation."

Source: California Budget Project, Budget Brief, June 2013

On the heels of a jarring grand jury report finding that the influx of state prisoners into the Orange County jail system is ramping up violence, a study by the nonprofit California Budget Project found that this shift – called “realignment” in the official parlance – isn’t really saving much money.

Yes, shifting low-level prisoners and parolees from the expensive and overcrowded state system to the less-expensive and less-crowded county system is slated to save $1.3 billion in the state corrections budget.

But that is almost entirely offset by new spending at the county level – about $1.1 billion this year – to accommodate realignment prisoners and parolees, the California Budget Project found.

All told, at all levels, corrections in California costs more than $10 billion a year, the CBP found. On the upside, that’s probably lower than it would have been if the whole enchilada had remained in the state’s hands, and savings are likely to increase a bit each year going forward (because counties receive less funding to house and supervise low-level offenders and parolees than the state would have spent), the CBP said.

One of the more sobering findings: California will spend about $60,000 per prison inmate this year – which is 82.3 percent higher than in 1994-95, even after adjusting for inflation, the CBP found.

It’s also about 15.1 percent higher than in 2010-11 – the year before realignment began – when California spent about $52,000 per inmate (after adjusting for inflation), the CBP said.

The CBP is an independent nonprofit public-policy organization “seeking fiscal reforms to benefit low and moderate income Californians,” it says. The state doesn’t have much quarrel with its findings – but wanted to stress that the heart of realignment is to ease prison overcrowding, not to save money.

In August 2009, there were about 150,000 inmates in California state prisons – about 188 percent of the system’s “design capacity.” A panel of federal judges ruled that overcrowding was the main reason California failed to provide prisoners with medical and mental health care that met U.S. constitutional standards. The court ordered California to reduce the prison by about 40,000 – to 110,000 inmates, which is about 138 percent of design capacity.

Hence, realignment.

“Realignment wasn’t implemented as a cost-savings measure. That’s basically the bottom line,” said Dana Simas, spokeswoman for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

Right now, California prisons house about 120,000 inmates. Federal judges have ordered Gov. Jerry Brown to release another 9,600 inmates – essentially, immediately – and Brown is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn that order. He worries that public safety will be at risk as a result. He has prepared a plan to do so, but no one much likes it, including the governor himself.

Simas said that California has significantly beefed up medical and dental care since the federal court orders have come down, “so of course cost per inmate is going to go up.”

Recidivism in state prisons is shrinking, Simas said. Using tools created with UC Irvine, the state found that the number of former inmates returning to state prison last year declined from 65.1 percent to 63.7 percent. These inmates also committed 1,450 fewer crimes than those released the year before, despite being a larger group of inmates, the state found.

Reformers hope that the shift to county jails will further reduce the revolving-door aspect of incarceration, as counties invest in programs to transition inmates to successful lives on the outside.

“(W)hile realignment holds great promise, it should be viewed as one major step in transforming California’s criminal justice system, rather than as the final stage of the process,” the CBP said. “In part, the next steps in corrections reform will involve evaluating realignment’s effects at the local level. This includes analyzing how counties are spending their realignment dollars, examining the extent to which recidivism is being reduced, and assessing the links, if any, between realignment and crime rates.”

Policymakers must do more to cut back, it said. “Greater scrutiny of state corrections spending is also essential, particularly given that per capita costs today are substantially higher than in the mid-1990s, even after adjusting for inflation,” the CBP wrote.

The grand jury’s probe into the local effects of realignment found that the crowding issue had largely trickled down. Some Orange County jails were crammed with twice as many inmates as they should ideally hold – and many of those inmates were more violent and had more mental health and drug issues than in the past, it found.

County officials fear that local jails, once stocked with more mild-mannered offenders, are morphing into “felony prisons,” the grand jury found.

Orange County and all the others are developing programs to help transition these prisoners into the community and cut recidivism further.

User Agreement

Keep it civil and stay on topic. No profanity, vulgarity, racial
slurs or personal attacks. People who harass others or joke about
tragedies will be blocked. By posting your comment, you agree to
allow Orange County Register Communications, Inc. the right to
republish your name and comment in additional Register publications
without any notification or payment.